The Meaning of Life next week

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Forgive me Paul but I had completely forgotten about you, remind me again which comment you have a problem with.

Post #69. You attribute me with using the phrase 'awesome insight from the Professor', which you contrasted with your own 'crock of nonsense'.

Whereas you did indeed refer to the RTE program as a 'crock of nonsense', for reasons that seem to me somewhat slight, I did not mention anything about 'awesome insight from the Professor, and I do not understand why you quote me so.

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

Post #69. You attribute me with using the phrase 'awesome insight from the Professor', which you contrasted with your own 'crock of nonsense'.

Whereas you did indeed refer to the RTE program as a 'crock of nonsense', for reasons that seem to me somewhat slight, I did not mention anything about 'awesome insight from the Professor, and I do not understand why you quote me so.

Oh right, so when I said 'I guess my crock of nonsense is your awesome insight from the professor' you think that means that I am quoting you?
Check it out Paul and get back to me. BTW I won't be looking for an apology, we all make mistakes from time to time.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Oh right, so when I said 'I guess my crock of nonsense is your awesome insight from the professor' you think that means that I am quoting you?
Check it out Paul and get back to me. BTW I won't be looking for an apology, we all make mistakes from time to time.

But that's not what you said, Dan. What you said was:

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess that's how it goes Paul, my 'crock of nonsense' is your 'awesome insight from the Professor'

Note the quotation marks you used. Quotation marks are used for quoting what somebody said. I didn't say that. It is a false quote. You should apologize and retract.

Why would you seek an apology from me? Have I misquoted you?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

pauldla

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

You do not see my objection?

seamus

Azalea wrote: »

It was so cringey when Gaybo said "Your friend Neil... Tyson is it?"

To be fair, Neil Tyson and Bill Nye get no airtime this side of the Atlantic. The vast majority of Gaybo's audience would never have heard of either of them.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

pauldla wrote: »

You do not see my objection?

oh, the irony

pauldla

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

oh, the irony

Are you suggesting that Dan was being ironic...? I would appreciate it if you would be so good as to elaborate.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Not particularly 'ironic', moreso the bolded bit:

To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes.

Hotblack Desiato

So you're a fan of Simple Wikipedia, STIF? :pac:

Azalea wrote: »

It was so cringey when Gaybo said "Your friend Neil... Tyson is it?"

I think he forgot whether it was pronounced De Grass or De Grassy so just left it out!

pauldla

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Not particularly 'ironic', moreso the bolded bit:

The bolded bit suggests that some style guides suggest using single quotation marks for ironic usage, does it not? Does the beginning of the article you reference not point out that there is no absolute rule on the usage, and that in the UK (and, by extension, usage that one one might expect to find in Ireland, unless you are Roddy Doyle or James Joyce), either single or double quotes are used?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think he forgot whether it was pronounced De Grass or De Grassy so just left it out!

I think Gaybo would know who Tyson is. Whatever else you think of him, he's very professional and he does his research for interviews. (Or he has it done for him, and he has his researchers brief him well.)

But he would also know that many of the viewers would have no idea who Tyson is. So - this is a common technique - he asks the question in the persona of someone who maybe hasn't heard of Tyson, or the name is familiar but he doesn't know much about him. This serves the dual function of (a) not alienating the viewers by giving them the feeling that they are watching a discussion that assumes a higher level of prior knowledge than they actually have, and (b) signalling gently to the interviewee that in his answer he may want to include a bit of context to "place" Tyson; he shouldn't assume that Tyson is a familiar name to the audience.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you're a fan of Simple Wikipedia, STIF? :pac:

I'm more a 'fan' of Google, and whatever results it brings me, really. Although I probably could learn to use it better, and not just click on the first result.

pauldla wrote: »

Does the beginning of the article you reference not point out that there is no absolute rule on the usage

Yes, exactly.

pauldla

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

...
Yes, exactly.

So, single inverted commas are often used to quote verbatim? I don't get the point you're trying to make, to be honest. The words that Dan attributed to me are not my words. The opinion he has me voicing is not my opinion. Would you be aggrieved if you were misquoted so?

realdanbreen

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

To the power of 10 :rolleyes:

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

To the power of 10 :rolleyes:

Mecha Christ? :eek::P

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

To the power of 10 :rolleyes:

If this is your final comment on the matter, I shall pursue it no further.

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

If this is your final comment on the matter, I shall pursue it no further.

Missing you already..;)

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Missing you already..;)

Missing, misquoting, misreading, it seems; I ain't going anywhere.

Dan_Solo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Missing you already..;)

but your aim's getting better?
(to quote the country and western song)

Dan_Solo

undesceaux wrote: »

First time I've watched Dawkins in a while and he's still primitive in his beliefs. I expect him (and his followers) to come round soon enough. When he starts viewing evolution in terms of biological and post biological and realizes that his "ultimate boeing 747" rebuttal of God actually is a fatal flaw in his atheism, we will see him finally progress to the next level - a scientific hypothesis of the existence of God. Clearly God didn't create the universe and the religious scriptures cant be taken literally but if Dawkins ever sits down and follows his evolutionary theories all the way, he will come to the point where evolution starts to verify Gods existence. The answer lies in postbiological evolution and the EVOLUTION of a being that is infinitely more intelligent and capable than all humans combined. He is right about one thing though, "the designer himself must be the product of some kind of evolutionary process". When he follows this though, looking into things like AI, singularity, law of accelerating returns etc, he will eventually come to conceive of "God", and all the ramifications that brings. Yes Dawkins, the bible is scientifically erroneous etc, get over it and start actually thinking progressively and use evolution to fill in the gaps and explain how supernatural "God AI" eventually appears.

This sounds brilliant. Where can I buy it?
Oh hang on, I though I was still in the Science Fiction board. Never mind.

pauldla

Dan_Solo wrote: »

but your aim's getting better?
(to quote the country and western song)

That just triggered an ear worm, damn you. Same genre, different song.

We''ve been dating since high school we never once left this town
We use to go out on the weekends and we'd drink 'til we drowned
But now she's acting funny and I don't understand
I think that she's found her some other man

She left me for Jesus and that just ain't fair
She says that He's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find Him and I'll know peace at last
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking His ass

She showed me a picture all I could do was stare
At that freak in His sandals with His long pretty hair
They must think that I'm stupid or I don't have a clue
I'll bet He's a commie or ever worse yet a Jew

She left me for Jesus and that just ain't fair
She says that He's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find Him and I'll know peace at last
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking His ass

She's given up whiskey and ah taking up wine
While she prays for His troubles, she's forgot about mine
I'm a gonna get even, I can't handle the shame
Why last time we made love she even called out his name

She left me for Jesus and that just ain't fair
She says that He's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find Him and I'll know peace at last
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking His ass

It coulda been Carlos or even Billy Ortez
But if I ever find Jesus
He's gonna wish He was dead, Amen

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm afraid to ask but curiosity has, as it so often does, gotten the better of me.
What's 'post biological'?

Genetic and synthetic engineering of humans and/or the rise of the artificial intelligence machine.

undesceaux wrote: »

First time I've watched Dawkins in a while and he's still primitive in his beliefs. I expect him (and his followers) to come round soon enough. When he starts viewing evolution in terms of biological and post biological and realizes that his "ultimate boeing 747" rebuttal of God actually is a fatal flaw in his atheism, we will see him finally progress to the next level - a scientific hypothesis of the existence of God. Clearly God didn't create the universe and the religious scriptures cant be taken literally but if Dawkins ever sits down and follows his evolutionary theories all the way, he will come to the point where evolution starts to verify Gods existence. The answer lies in postbiological evolution and the EVOLUTION of a being that is infinitely more intelligent and capable than all humans combined. He is right about one thing though, "the designer himself must be the product of some kind of evolutionary process". When he follows this though, looking into things like AI, singularity, law of accelerating returns etc, he will eventually come to conceive of "God", and all the ramifications that brings. Yes Dawkins, the bible is scientifically erroneous etc, get over it and start actually thinking progressively and use evolution to fill in the gaps and explain how supernatural "God AI" eventually appears.

But even if some god-like entity were to arise in the future, that would not invalidate Dawkins' atheism in the present.
Unless you think that this entity would develop the ability to go back in time and engineer the sequence of events (the start of biological life ) which would eventually lead to its own creation. Which is a paradox.

robindch

Well, who'd have guessed that no less a public intellectual than Bristol Palin watched Dawkins and Gaybo? And she's upset. Very upset.

At Dawkins since he said that the 9/11 terrorists were not evil men. Of course, he explained the context in which he made that comment, but Bristol ignores it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2015/10/richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/23/according-to-bristol-palin-richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/

Absolam

"militant Atheist scientist". Sounds like an awesome job title. Probably comes with epaulettes. Big ones, to match the A.

Sonics2k

robindch wrote: »

Well, who'd have guessed that no less a public intellectual than Bristol Palin watched Dawkins and Gaybo? And she's upset. Very upset.

At Dawkins since he said that the 9/11 terrorists were not evil men. Of course, he explained the context in which he made that comment, but Bristol ignores it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2015/10/richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/23/according-to-bristol-palin-richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/

Regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof, it’s absolutely ludicrous to say that men who chose to train for years with the sole aim to kill as many people as possible are somehow not evil. I would say their actions are the very definition of evil.

Sounds like she's talking about most Army's across the world.

Hotblack Desiato

They're not evil when they're shooting away from you.

expectationlost

latest broadcasting complaints decisions published

3. Complaint Summary
The complainant states that at about 12 minutes into the programme, the programme
presenter referred to his guest, Ms. Mary Black, as having attended the St. Louis School
in Rathmines, and he stated (not asked): “You must have realised that the real purpose
of you being there was to be indoctrinated with the Roman Catholic faith, and that did
happen of course”.
The complainant further states:-
• To use the highly charged word “indoctrinate” is, in his opinion, a serious
allegation, and confuses indoctrination with religious education. He states that, in
saying that this was “the real purpose” of her education the presenter was saying
that this “indoctrination” was the over-riding purpose of the school. The
complainant states that this is a gratuitous insult to the school, and the presenter
made no effort whatsoever to balance it by suggesting that there could have
been any other agenda in the school which was beneficial. The complainant
states that in the format of the programme there was no representative of the
school to answer that charge, so at the very least, the presenter of the
programme had a responsibility to put an opposite view

decision

The Forum acknowledged that some audience members may find the use of the word
“indoctrinate” offensive. However, the members had regard for the context in which the
word was used. The question was about the interviewee’s experience attending
Catholic school and was not about a religious view, belief or image. Further, the Forum
noted that this is a long-running programme and regular viewers would be very familiar
with the format and types of interview questions.
• The members noted the complainant’s belief that the programme was unfair and that
an opposing view should have been provided regarding Catholic schools, but were of
the view that as this is not a current affairs programme, there is no requirement for
fairness, objectivity and impartiality.

BAI rarely upholds a complaint

Hotblack Desiato

They did manage to prevent anyone talking on TV and radio about gay marriage without an Iona representative present however - even before the referendum date was set.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They did manage to prevent anyone talking on TV and radio about gay marriage without an Iona representative present however - even before the referendum date was set.

im not sure that ever actually occurred, its was claimed by Una Mullalaly but never backed up, the BAI repeatedly said that balance could be achieved across programmes.